Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has decided to hear briefs in the case of Bevis v. Naperville. This case challenges a ban on so called "assault weapons". If Barrett grants the emergency injunction in this case it would send a loud message to the lower courts hearing similar cases.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So contrary to everything you've been hearing lately about rifle bands, mag bands, and even carry bands, we live in some pretty exciting times right now post-Bruan where the Supreme Court has told the lower courts how they are supposed to evaluate and review Second Amendment cases. That's spurred on a lot of new lawsuits and it's also helped some lawsuits that were kind of stalled out at the appellant level.

Now, one of these cases that has kind of been helped out by the Bruan decision is the case of Beis v. Aille out of Illinois, which is challenging the assault weapons ban in that county. Well, it looks like Judge Amy Coney Barrett might actually hear this one, so a Supreme Court Justice might be taking on the first so-called assault weapons ban case. Let's talk about it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here and why this is so important. As I'm sure you're aware, there's quite a few lawsuits that are very similar to this lawsuit that Amy Coney Barrett has decided that she is going to be hearing briefs on. We have lawsuits in California, in Washington, in New York, in Illinois obviously, and so many other states. This gives us some insight as to how the Supreme Court might view these cases again post-Bruan.

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court, to this date, has not heard any arguments regarding any of the state so-called assault weapons bans. So, this is actually a very big deal that we have a Supreme Court Justice now who has decided that she is going to be hearing briefs in this case because again, it signals what the Supreme Court might decide should one of these cases make it all the way to a full court.

So, let's say the California case, which is currently sitting in front of the ninth circuit. I have a good feeling that that's going to be heading up to the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court decides to actually take that case on, this decision by Amy Coney Barrett down the road might give us some insight as to how they would view that case later on.

Now, it's again, it's only one justice, but it's a majority conservative court at the moment. So, it would give us a little bit of insight as to how maybe the rest of the conservative judges on that panel would act. One thing I want to point out is that the plaintiffs aren't asking the Justice to overturn the law altogether. They're asking for an emergency injunction, and if that injunction was granted, it would bar enforcement of that law. The law would still exist but it would be unenforceable while this case moves forward.

By granting that, the Justice is basically saying that she believes that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits. So, again, it would give us a clear indication of where she stands, and that indication would be heard nationwide. I guarantee you that every single appellate court and every single state in this country that has a similar ban would be paying very close attention to it, and so that might have an effect on all of these other cases moving forward.

So, definitely keep that in mind while this deals with Illinois and Aille, the Supreme Court, when they speak, it has effects nationwide. Just like Bruan was a case out of New York and it dealt specifically with New York, but after Bruan came out, it changed the Second Amendment landscape in this country forever. So, when the Supreme Court speaks, it carries weight across the entire country.

So again, while this deals just with Illinois and Aille, we're talking about an entire country that could see repercussions from any type of Supreme Court decision. Let's keep our fingers crossed here that she can see through all the lies and the deceit of those people who would like to push these unconstitutional laws and sees that the plaintiffs do have a likelihood of success here and that the Constitution and our Second Amendment rights are clearly being violated by what they're doing in Illinois and Aille.

So, we're going to keep a close watch on this one. I'm very curious what the outcome will be because as far as these other states go, I mean, we're just waiting on a break like this. So again, we'll pay close attention to it. If there's any movement, she comes out with a decision or an order, I will let you guys know. But it would be great at least just to get the injunction against what Illinois is doing right now. So I wanted to share that with you guys, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The lawsuit challenging Californias Ban on LCM's aka "Standard Cap" magazines just hit a setback at the 9th Circuit with nearly two dozen states writing a brief in support of the states ban. The case in question is "Duncan v. Bonta" also "Duncan v. Becerra"

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So you guys are not going to believe this one; you're definitely going to want to stick around for this. Today, we're talking about a setback in Duncan v. Bont, which is a case challenging California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, commonly known as LCMs (large-capacity magazines). This case has already been found unconstitutional twice at the district court level in front of Judge Roger Bedz, and now, for the second time, it sits in front of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, it turns out that we have 20 states out there, 19 states plus the District of Columbia, that have written a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are telling them that these LCMs are not protected by the Constitution, and the Ninth Circuit should uphold California's ban. The states that wrote this letter might actually surprise you. One of the states that wrote to the Ninth Circuit, saying that this ban is okay and not protected by the Constitution, is Arizona. Let's go ahead and talk about the rest and what they said because their argument is unbelievable. But I can almost guarantee you that the Ninth Circuit is going to pay attention to it.

Hey, real quick before we get this video started, I just want to say thank you to everybody for watching. I really do appreciate all the support. We are on our final push to 500,000; we're getting really close. So if you're watching this and you're not subscribed yet, it's free, it only takes a second. Hit that subscribe button, share this with your friends because people need to know what's going on out there, and a like button is always appreciated. So with that being said, let's talk about what's going on here.

Okay, so let's go ahead and talk about what's going on here with Duncan v. Bont. Like I said in the beginning, 19 states plus the District of Columbia have written a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, telling them that they need to uphold the ban on those LCMs. They said that they need to uphold the ban for several different reasons, and we'll get into those reasons. But let me go ahead and first tell you what these states are, the names of these states that wrote this brief, and again, some of them might surprise you.

Here's a list of states that submitted the brief: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. In support of appellant and reversal, and what they're talking about is the reversal of Judge Bedz's injunction against this law.

Now you might notice there on that list, there are several states that do not have capacity bans in them currently. So if you heard that state, you know somebody who lives in that state, or you want to share this video so that people know about this, these are states who are calling for California to keep their ban. So I would be a little bit nervous and expect that a ban might be coming to some of these states fairly soon.

But what are they using to justify this brief? What are they saying that allows California to keep this ban? Well, let's read the table of contents real quick, and it'll tell us a little bit of something here.

They're writing this to promote our resident safety and well-being. States impose a range of restrictions, including prohibitions on dangerous accessories and weapons not commonly used for self-defense. Now, that's one part that you're going to hear a lot - not commonly used for self-defense. They added that last part, commonly used for self-defense. That is not what was said by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says that if they are in common use for lawful purposes, then they are protected by the Second Amendment. It doesn't have to do anything with self-defense. Just they have to be in common use for lawful purposes. But now they've added that, and they're trying to sell that as, you know, real to California's restrictions on magazine capacity comports with the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not protect large-capacity magazines. Large-capacity magazines are not arms. So they're saying it right there - they're not protected because they are not arms, which we all know to be completely false. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense. Again, there's another thing - they don't have to be commonly used for self-defense. They just have to be in common use for lawful purposes.

And then we have B: California's magazine capacity restrictions are analogous to the historical practices of regulating the storage of ammunition, imposing restrictions on new and distinctly dangerous forms of weaponry. Well, none of that has any relevance to storage versus banning a capacity. So I don't see how that's a historical analog whatsoever. This court should consider the full sweep of our nation's historical tradition of regulating arms. So basically, what they're saying here is that we somehow have a history of violating people's Second Amendment rights, and the court should consider that, which really isn't the case. We didn't really have any major regulations that hit until maybe the early 20th century. California's laws comport with our historical tradition, which again is just completely untrue.

So it says here in their interest of why they are submitting this brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It says that all of the above-named states have compelling governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention. In furtherance of these interests and pursuant to Rule 29A2, we submit this brief to explain why California's limitation on the size of ammunition magazines that may be purchased and possessed within its borders is wholly consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now, it continues on with a list of cases that are supposed to support their argument, but it says here in the summary of the argument: The Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. And then they cite the NYRPA Bruan case, recognizing that "reasonable firearms regulations can coexist comfortably with the Second Amendment." And then they quote McDonald, saying the states have adopted a variety of restrictions on weapons and accessories that are not in common use for self-defense. Again, they just threw that in there. Remember that. Try and keep that in mind. That is completely made up. That is not what the actual quote is.

This case concerns one such law. California prohibits the possession and sale of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, referred to as LCMs. And then it gives the penal code like similar laws around the country imposing restrictions on certain types of accessories, ammunition, and weapons themselves.

Misapplying the framework set forth in Bruan, the district court concluded that the plaintiff's appellees' Second Amendment challenge to this law is likely to succeed on the merits. Duncan v. Bont, the conclusion should be reversed. LCMs are not arms under the Second Amendment's plain text because they are neither commonly used nor used for self-defense. A historical understanding of the term arms did not encompass container accessories such as LCMs. Moreover, California's law is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Again, it quotes Bruan.

So keep in mind that all of those states that are on this list agree with what is in this letter, which states that they are not protected by the Second Amendment. They are not even considered arms, which we all know that they are just based on pure definition alone. So they're saying that they're not protected. Again, keep an eye on that list. If you see a state there that does not have a restriction as of yet, they don't believe that you have a right to them. So they believe that they can pretty much just take them away as they want because, well, they're not even considered arms.

So again, anybody that lives in the state might want to perk up your ears a little bit and check into this because, again, that's what your state, at least the government officials in your state, believe. And so that should be something that should be alarming to anybody like in the state of Arizona and others. To me, that's just kind of... it's very, very worrisome. Nonetheless, this is a big setback for Duncan. The reason is that the Ninth Circuit is looking to lean on anything that they can in order to strike down Bont's injunction and say that it is constitutional and that it should be upheld. They're looking for any excuse that they can have because we know from just past decisions from the Ninth Circuit that it's more about agenda and less about the rule of law and the Constitution. As long as they can find a way to somehow, even if it doesn't really make sense, validate their agenda, then they will do that.

Now guaranteed, if that happens, this is going to be going up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to have to hear this. These types of things are in other circuit courts across the country. And with differing opinions between district courts, appellate courts, and stuff like that post-Bruan, you can almost be guaranteed that the Supreme Court is going to take this up. And since they are in common use for lawful purposes, I think that we would get a win out of this out of the Supreme Court. So these states right here that feel like they might be helping California try and uphold their ban, it might end up working against them. Because yes, while it might delay it for a while till it does get up to the Supreme Court, in the end, if the Supreme Court rules on it, guess what? That would affect the entire country altogether. So it would basically nullify any ban in any state all across this country, just like what happened in Bruan with good cause or just cause. While it was a New York case, that decision in Bruan had a ripple effect across the entire country.

So they could be just, you know, they could be doing more harm than good by this. Nonetheless, this is what the Ninth Circuit needed to help them make their decision. So you can almost guarantee now what the Ninth Circuit is going to do with Duncan. And I wanted to make you guys aware of it because, again, it's unnerving that you have these states right, like California, which already has the most laws on the books in this area than any other state in the entire country. Yet, other states that don't have those same laws, a lot of them on that list are almost as bad as California, but not all of them. But they still feel like they need to tell California what laws they should uphold against the rights of their own citizens. So it is just absolutely out of control what's happening. I think what's happened is we've kind of backed the dog into a corner right now with Bruan. They know that they're losing; they know that things are being overturned. They know that they're not on the winning foot here; they're not on the winning side. And so while they're backed up, they're just getting a little bit frothy at the mouth. And this is what you get out of that. And again, I wanted to share that with you. So we'll see what happens. We're not going to know anything until next year. But we'll be paying close attention to Duncan, Miller, and any other case that is important across this country. Thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The California roster which until a recent injunction in Boland v. Bonta has essentially been frozen for years. Now with the injunction in place were seeing excellent new additions almost weekly. This is the biggest and best yet.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Sorry I've been gone for so long. If you guys watched my last video, you'll know that the entire family came down with theonas at pretty much the exact same time, and it has been hanging on like a dingleberry in the wind. I mean, it just will not go away. Today is the first day where I feel like my voice is at least good enough to get back in front of the camera.

But there was something that happened while my voice was completely gone that I wanted to make a video about so bad. Finally, I get to make that video today, and it's very exciting because there has been a massive expansion of the California handgun roster. As you guys know, over the past few months, things have been kind of trickling in—some new things, some good things, some not so good things. A lot of the stuff that's been trickling in are things that people in California don't really want all that much, and every once in a while, you get one or two things that people actually do want.

But now there has been a huge new entry of things that are not only the new things that everybody else in the free states is getting, but these are things that Californians have actually been asking for. So it is very, very exciting to see this big new swath of things added to the roster, and I wanted to share that with you guys today. So let's get to it.

This video is proud to be sponsored by Scheels. In my opinion, the greatest outdoor adventure sports and active lifestyle store that you will ever visit, with some of the best experts on hand to answer all of your questions. With 30 locations across the country, there's probably one close to you that you can visit. Scheels is your retail destination for sports, outdoors, and fashion, with unrivaled passion for their field. Each of Shield sales associates is expertly trained to give you the best in-store experience.

They have to be experts out of the store before Scheels will call them experts in the store. Not only does Scheels have a huge selection of everything you're looking for, for outdoors, hunting, archery, active wear, but they also have a Scheels guarantee. Everything you buy at Scheels, on sale or otherwise, is guaranteed satisfactory or your money back. So visit your local Scheels or visit them online to see what everybody's talking about and to take advantage of some of the best deals.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. I had heard about some of these being added to the roster months ago, but as you know, California, with their whole approval process, it takes quite a bit of time. There has to be an application, and that application has to go through California's own testing process, and there are fees that have to be paid. There's a lot that needs to happen in order for a company to get something on the roster and then get that thing approved. So once it's on the roster, that's great, but it could take months to actually get there.

Now, the things that we're going to be talking about today are things that, like I said before, people in California actually want. And in my opinion, I think that these are great additions as well. So let's go ahead and take a look at what was just added. Now, real quick, for those of you who are wondering how to look this up for yourself, it's very easy. All you have to do is simply Google the roster and recently added. Usually, the first link that pops up is to the California DOJ website, and you can click on that, and it'll show you everything that's been recently added so that you can look for yourself whenever you'd like. So let's go ahead and take a look at that list.

Now, on the list, we have several different manufacturers and some things that I think a lot of people are going to like. So we have the Springfield XDM Elite, we have the Hellcat Pro, obviously, we have the Anaconda. I don't see why that's a big surprise there. But we also have the Smith and Wesson M&P9 2.0 Compact, which is cool. We have the Kimber K6 XS Carry, the M&P Shield Plus, which is going to be the new Shield. In California, there used to be the original Shield on the roster. Yeah, the standard Hellcat, and then we have the M&P 9 2.0. And then obviously, based on the video that I made previously, the 365 still shows up as recently added. So that's eight different things that people actually want that popped up on the same day, and it covers a pretty wide variety from full size to subcompact, compact, kind of all of the different sizes in between. It seems like just about everything there is covered, which is fantastic.

And these are all very good options. I know that some people have different brand choices and stuff like that, but these are good solid options for people in the state of California who have been limited to things that are 25 years old and older previously because of microstamping. Microstamping kept everything off the roster because microstamping doesn't exist. So the case of Bona v. Bonta got an injunction placed against the roster and some of its components. One of those components that remains enjoined is going to be that microstamping requirement.

So without that requirement, you still need the LCM. You still need a couple of other things that need to be there that are different than what you might have in free states, but they're not deal-breaker things. I mean, they're kind of inconveniences, and some of them might be more than others. But for the most part, these are still very viable good options. I know people are asking, "When are we going to get Gen 5 G19, G17, and so forth?" That's the big one for me because I know that people absolutely love that brand. They've been stuck with the Gen 3s there in that state forever. And so people are wondering when the Gen 5s are going to hit the list.

And to be honest with you, I don't know. That's the only one that I can't seem to find out. But I think that's one of those things where we're just going to have to keep checking daily to see what gets added next. But I can tell you with California, the number of background checks that are run on a daily basis in that state, people in free states would be absolutely shocked at how much business is done in the state of California. I mean, it's a huge market. And so you have a lot of these big companies that are rushing in right now, trying to take advantage of that market.

And so as long as there is demand, you're going to have these bigger and bigger companies trying to get in there because they want a piece of that pie. And so since the demand stays high, then we're going to see more stuff get added to the roster. So that's kind of where things are right now. I think a lot of companies are trying to rush into the state with whatever they can at the moment while they're trying to work on other things that they can get in, you know, after they can get in the easier stuff, the things that are easy to add little parts and pieces to make them compliant for the state.

But yeah, we'll see what happens with the other brands, what they decide to do. But we have several big brands back in the state with the 365 and the compacts and everything else. I think that there are definitely a lot more better options available than there was six months ago. Even so, it's really exciting. I'm excited to check it. I check it pretty much constantly to see what else has been added. But that Bona made a huge difference in the state of California. Now, that case isn't over. There are other cases that are dealing with the roster as well. As a matter of fact, there are multiple cases at the ninth circuit level right now that deal with this pretty much exact same thing.

So there's a good chance that we could see this completely overturned, where we wouldn't need any of the little trinkets and things that California requires to be added to make it on the roster even be necessary. And without those, you could pretty much bring in whatever you want. It would take the roster from something that kind of puts a stranglehold on what people can have in California to something that's really just a list of what's available. And that's kind of the end game here. The end game is to get rid of the roster requirements altogether, which would be phenomenal. I think that we can actually make that happen.

I mean, there are some pretty big groups that are involved with these. Their lawyers have excellent arguments and post-Brown, there's no way to make a roster hold up. You can't go back in time from the founding of our country and the ratification of the Second Amendment to the Reconstruction Era and find anything like a roster. There's no way you're going to find that. So there's no historical analog that's going to back up that law. And I think that that, in itself, is going to be a big benefit to completely overturning the roster eventually.

So at least in the meantime right now, without that microstamping requirement, people in California are finally getting the new stuff. And it's exciting to report on good news. You know, a lot of people click on the stuff that's always the bad news, the big horrible thing that's happened. People like to click on that just to see what's going on. But every once in a while, man, there's good news, and we need to pay attention to the good news just like we do the bad news because this is something worth being excited about. Anyway, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I think I can start making videos on a daily basis again. You guys have a good one.

In the case of Britto v. ATF the judge has said that due to 5th circuit precedent and the facts at hand, the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits and therefore finds the ATF violated the APA and placed a nationwide block on the "Brace Rule"

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, I'd love bringing you guys good news, and today is definitely one of those days. If you were somebody who was kind of upset because the FPC's lawsuit or the GOA's lawsuit, which got an injunction placed against enforcement of the brace rule, only applied to its members and the organization itself for the plaintiffs, well, guess what? Today is your day because a judge basically just struck down the brace rule, and now it's not enforceable against anyone. So, we have a nationwide block of the ATF's brace rule. Let's talk about what happened; it's awesome.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is very exciting. It just broke late last night, and it's very good news. As I'm sure most of you are aware, there were multiple lawsuits that were filed against the ATF once they published their final rule on braces. Some challenged the final rule on Second Amendment grounds; others challenged it on procedural federal grounds. Now, the FPC and the GOA had already both won injunctions in their cases, which covered the members, but it didn't cover the entire country.

There was another case out there which we're talking about today, which is Brid VATF, and that was challenging the final rule on administrative grounds. So basically, saying that the ATF didn't follow the APA or the Administrative Procedures Act when they came out with their final rule. What they're saying is that the ATF came out with these proposed rules, then there was a comment period. Now, after the comment period, the final rule should be in line with the rule that people commented on, right? So, it should be fairly similar, so to speak. What the ATF did is they had a proposed rule people commented on it, and then the final rule that came out was completely different—no worksheets, none of that, and it was totally changed from what people had commented on. So again, they didn't follow the correct procedure when coming out with their final rule. And so, this judge says that basically makes this new rule illegal and completely unenforceable and for the entire country, not just for the plaintiffs, not just for any members or anything like that. And these plaintiffs are veterans; these are guys who served this country. But this is a case that affected everyone.

Now, I'm sure there are people out there who are going to say it's just going to be appealed, and that's probably true. But who's it going to get appealed to? This is a case out of Texas, which means it would be appealed back up to the fifth circuit, which has already weighed in on this issue. So, I don't think we have anything to worry about, even from the fifth circuit. And one of the interesting things here is that this District Court Judge, which basically overturned this law for the whole country, used the FPC's case when making his decision. So, here on page four, it says, "Recent precedent, this court does not begin with a blank slate as the parties have acknowledged the recent case of Mock V Garland, which is the FBC case, provides substantial guidance." There, a firearms advocacy group, individual brace pistol owners, and an accessories manufacturer and retailer brought action under the APA, challenging the same rule before the court. Now, on appeal, the fifth circuit held that the rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.

So, the logical outgrowth meaning that it's somewhat in line with the proposed rule that people were allowed to comment on. The monumental error was prejudicial, and that it must be set aside as unlawful. That's a quote from Mock V Garland. So, you saw it right there, the judge's own words basically saying that the Mock V Garland case, which again was brought forth by the FPC and other plaintiffs, played a big role in the judge's decision-making because those cases have advanced further than this case. Because there have already been judges that have weighed in and granted injunctions and said that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits. This judge agreed with those other judges and saw that the APA was not followed, and this is an illegitimate rule. And so, basically, the judge said, you know what? Then this rule should not apply to anybody and again overturned it for the entire country.

So, the bottom line here is that one violates our Second Amendment rights. We've seen that because these other cases, again, have challenged it on Second Amendment grounds. These other cases, including this case, have challenged it on procedural grounds, and it violates those procedures. So again, in multiple ways, this law or this rule, whatever they want to call it, it's a law because it affects people's freedoms, but this rule should not exist. And so, for everybody out there right now, as of at least the time I'm making this video, the brace rule is no longer in effect. At least, for the time being, we'll see what happens in the future, and I'll keep you guys updated. But that's some pretty good news for now.

So, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

There were two recent additions to the "roster" that had people in California pretty excited until they saw that the new additions cost "off roster" prices. It's outrageous what is happening and I would like to see companies stop taking advantage of Californians due to their lack of options.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, we're going to be talking about a couple of new roster editions: the 365 and the 320 in the state of California. And even if you don't live in the state of California, you're going to want to watch this one because people in California, it feels like sometimes even when they win, they still lose. I mean, this is going to make your head spin. People in California are getting Rak over the coals for these, okay? So let's go and talk about what's going on here, and I've got to be honest with you guys, this is terrible. I mean, it's just absolutely terrible to see this happen. And I'm going to have to tiptoe around the way that I talk about this for obvious reasons. But let's just go ahead and get into it.

So if you live in the state of California, I'm sure that you're aware of what the roster is, right? It's a list of things that California has approved in that state, and it's a very short list. That short list has gotten smaller and smaller over the years, mostly due to micro-stamping. There was a micro-stamping provision that said something had to have a micro stamp in multiple locations in order for it to be approved for that list. Well, there was an injunction placed against the enforcement of that micro-stamping provision, and since that injunction is currently in place, there's a lot more things that have recently been added to the roster. And out of those things, two of them were the 320 and the 365. And so that's the good news, right? That's great news. People finally have a carry option and a full-size option that are well respected across the country and newer than what was on the roster, usually like 25 plus years old. So that's the good news.

Here's the bad news. I decided to go and check to see what these things would cost. And so I went to one of the more popular places, which was Turners, and it's $730 for a 365. $730! Now, for those people in California who might not know any better, if you were to go to where I live in the state of Nevada or go to an academy outside of the state of California, they're on sale for like $474 right now. I think the average price is around $500. So $500 seems to be the norm whenever I look. Sometimes you can find it for a little bit less, sometimes a little bit more, but for the most part, it's around $500. In California, for the same thing, pretty much, other than a magazine disconnect, load chamber indicator, things like that, you know, very small things, it's over $700. Over $700! That's getting fairly close to off-roster prices.

Now, if you don't know what off-roster means, that means when somebody who is exempt, okay? They're exempt from the roster, so law enforcement, government officials, people like that, when they're exempt from the roster, they can get whatever they want that's available to everybody else. When they get something and they determine that they don't want it anymore for whatever reason, they could put it on the market and you can get it. But you're going to have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for it because it's rare. I mean, it basically comes down to supply and demand. There's very few of them, and so supply and demand dictates that you're going to pay a lot more for it, right? I'm guilty of that myself. I think it's absolutely ridiculous because people are spending two, three times as much as you would pay in a free state for something that's really just basic, to be honest with you. So off-roster prices are insane. That's what you got here out of this.

So Californians win. Yeah, they got something new and something that's nice and definitely worth getting. But at the same time, you've got to pay $200 plus extra for it than you would in a free state. Now, I started thinking to myself, okay, maybe it's because there needs to be a dedicated line of machining for it, right? So there needs to be new machining, they're going to use new parts and stuff like that. But I started thinking, well, they do that for everything else as well. And the prices don't inflate when they come out with something new, right? That's available to all the free states. You don't see that new thing, which has a new line of machines just dedicated to that, probably get elevated in price. Now you don't see that. Okay, well, maybe it's the R&D that went into it, you know, the new development. There had to be some new things that had to be added to it, sure, fine. But again, isn't that what happens with everything they put out that's new? Everything they put out that's new required some type of R&D and some type of development, but you don't see that inflation going on there either.

And so I started thinking, well, maybe it's California. Maybe the retailers are just taking advantage of people. So I decided to call a buddy of mine who has access to all the different distributors around the area and what different pricing would be. And that's not the case either. As a matter of fact, the manufacturer, what the manufacturer is asking is extremely high. The manufacturer is asking for like $130, $140 over what retail is for everybody else. So you're talking about $130 over retail at the wholesale level for these people in California. Then there's a standardized pricing, right? So a lot of these manufacturers have a standardized pricing. You're not allowed to sell something lower than that standardized pricing, which is called map pricing. Okay. So if a retailer is caught cutting that price down past that map price, they can actually get in trouble with the distributor or the manufacturer and things like that. So there's a standardized pricing level. And so they're forced at that standardized pricing level. And that standardized pricing level is like hundreds of dollars more than what you would pay in a free state. Again, it's unbelievable how you get, well, I don't want to say lucky. That's the word that almost came out of my mouth, but there's a lot of people, including the FPC and others and the GOA and people that are involved in overturning these things so you guys can at least start to get some of your freedoms back. So there was a lot of work put into just this alone.

But there's people out there who fight to have these things overturned. And then when they do, the people of California see some benefit come out of it in the form of something being added to that roster. And then the negativity hits almost immediately when you find out that it is significantly more than everything else across the country. I just don't get it. Like I was saying in the beginning, it sometimes feels like even when you win, you lose. I mean, I personally, as where I live right now in Nevada, there's no way if I saw something for $730, a 365 for $730, there's no way I would get it. That's absolutely ridiculous. But if you want one in California, that's what you have to pay. It's just insane, and I just wanted to talk to you guys about that. So it's not the distributor, the distributors are stuck at a price. It's not the retailer, they're stuck at a price as well. It seems to be that it's inflated from the manufacturer. Now, I don't know that for a fact. It could happen somewhere in the middle in between the lines right between the distributor and the manufacturer or some type of contract could be written up. I'm not sure. But from everything that I've seen in my research talking to distributors, talking to retailers, and talking to wholesalers, stuff like that, it seems like it's starting at the source, and that's where the inflated price is coming from.

So, it's just, it really is just a shame, and I just wanted to bring that up to let some people know. At least when you go into your local shop and you see it for $730, $740, $750, whatever they're going to ask, it's really not their fault. They're barely making anything on it. So just try and keep that in mind. I don't know. I mean, if you add something new, just going to, I guess you're going to have to pay double for it. That's just the way it is until things could be normalized in that state. And we make that state like every other state, which I don't see happening very soon. But at least we'll have some laws overturned fairly soon here with everything that's going through the courts and everything that is as close as it is to the Supreme Court. So again, I wanted to talk to you guys about that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

A new bill was just recently introduced that would BAN bulk ammunition as well as require background checks and record keeping amongst other things. This is due to S. 3223, introduced by S. Warren.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, I think most of us understand that there will always be a struggle to maintain our constitutional rights. There's always going to be somebody out there who doesn't like the freedoms that we enjoy and would like to see those rights taken away. Usually, this comes in the form of Congress passing bills that restrict our rights, which is exactly what we have here—a new bill that was just introduced.

This bill would not only ban bulk ammo but add a ton of new regulations on top of all ammunition transactions. So, let's talk about this new bill that was just introduced in the Senate.

This video is proud to be sponsored by American Hartford Gold. Listen, if there is one thing that those of us in the Firearms Community understand, it's that you cannot rely on the government for your protection—not with your life and especially not with your wealth. Look throughout our lifetime; the dominance of the US dollar was unquestioned, but that may be changing as we face unprecedented inflation. The world's biggest economies are ditching the dollar for the Yen, banks are failing left and right, and the government is discussing total control of all your money with the new digital dollar.

Don't let your life savings become a casualty of failing corporations or currency wars. Now is the time to call the only precious metal dealer that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They'll show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio with physical gold and silver. With the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment, American Hartford Gold has a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A+ from the Better Business Bureau. American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth. Tell them I sent you, and they'll give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first order. So, call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-257. That's 866-856-2507 or text "copper" to 65532.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. The bill that we're talking about today is S3220. This bill has been introduced and is currently sitting in front of the Judiciary Committee. But it's so new that it doesn't even have the full text uploaded online yet. All we have so far is the title of the bill, but the title gives us enough information to kind of digest what might be in the bill once it comes out.

Let me go ahead and read you guys the title so you know what this bill is trying to do. Okay, so let's go and read this directly from Congress's website. I'm at the page for the bill, and it says, "All information except text for S3223, a bill to amend Title 18 United States code to prevent bulk sales of ammunition." So that's the first part. I don't know exactly what they consider bulk—it could be a hundred or more, in which case, they would ban the sale of anything that exceeded that number. "Promote recordkeeping and reporting about ammunition." So, what they want to do here is they want to do a background check, very similar to what you would do through an FFL. All of that information would be kept by the FFL, and it would be the same type of recordkeeping you would keep for other things that you would get from an FFL. "Ammunition straw purchasing." So, I don't know if you guys ever thought about this, but straw purchasing for ammunition means that you wouldn't be able to get something—a box of anything—and then give it to somebody else. They can consider that a straw purchase and require a background check. Here's the background check part: "Require a background check before the transfer of ammunition by certain FFLs to non-licensees."

Okay, that's just the title of the bill. This is what Warren has to say herself. "Hey, everyone, it's Congressman Robert Garcia, and I'm here with Senator Elizabeth Warren, and we're really proud today to introduce the Ammo Act. The Ammo Act restricts bulk sales of ammunition across the country. It makes sure that retailers who are selling ammunition have the same federal licensing as folks that are selling guns, and it ensures that people that are buying ammunition go through some type of background check. Because here's the deal: right now, there are no federal restrictions on the sale of ammunition, and that makes no sense at all."

So, let's break this down. I want to start off with that very last part where it says background checks through FFLs to non-licenses. So, what they're saying with that title is if you want to sell, you're going to have to have an FFL's license. There's going to have to be a background check done, paperwork probably similar to a 4473, and a fee is going to have to be paid for that paperwork. You're not going to be able to go to any normal mom-and-pop place or someplace that sells tools. They're going to have to be a licensed FFL to do the transaction under this bill.

Now, because we don't have the full bill text, it's very hard to figure out what they would consider to be bulk. But keep in mind, these are the same people that consider 11 rounds to be high capacity, so I assume that number is going to be very low. The threshold for bulk is going to be very low as well. And then straw purchases and all that other stuff, it's all going to be in there. When the actual text comes out, we'll break it down and see exactly what they're trying to ban and what they're trying to block with this. But this is the same stuff that we get all the time.

So, I personally think this is in response to Braun, because as of right now, we're seeing multiple states have their laws overturned or enjoined, barred from enforcement. That has to do with the fact that there is no historical analog, no historical tradition of that type of firearm regulation. So, again, all these states that have been just running rampant lately with their laws are having those laws overturned. Instead of going after the same old thing over and over, I think what they're trying to do now is simply expand on what they feel like they have a right to regulate, which they don't because they're protected by the Second Amendment, just like something with a serial number is. They don't understand that arms are what's protected. We already know that the Supreme Court has said that magazines are arms, and that firearms are arms, obviously. Anything that you can hold in your hand for your own defense is considered an arm. So, these qualify as being protected by the Second Amendment as well. Even if this were to pass, we could use the Braun standard to go after it as well. But that's what they're going to try and do—expand and broaden what they try and go after in the future.

I wanted to make you guys aware of that. If we get the full text here soon and we actually are able to see what's written in the bill, I'll bring that to you so we can get some real hard numbers on it. But I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you live within her district, please reach out and let her know that you do not stand for this whatsoever and to stop infringing on our constitutional rights. Thanks again for watching, you guys. Have a great day.

A Federal Appeals Court three judge panel on Friday said that "AR's" are not protected by the constitution. The reasoning behind their decision is outrageous and not based in fact. The opinion shows a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter in this case.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, a federal court of appeals has just decided that AR-15s are not protected by the Constitution, and honestly, you guys will not believe the reasoning they gave for coming to that conclusion. Let's talk about it.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here, so if you have an extra second (it's free), hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out, and let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks, let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is completely ridiculous. I mean, this is about as bad as it gets, and it's outrageous. This just goes to show you that these judges care more about their own personal agenda than upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, or even following Supreme Court precedent.

So, this comes from a three-judge panel out of the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that was dealing with Illinois's so-called assault weapons ban. It was a 2-to-1 split decision, and these are judges appointed by both Reagan and Clinton.

Before we talk about why they say that AR-15s are not protected by the Constitution, let me mention that the one dissenting judge didn't really put up that much of a fight. They didn't scold their colleagues like we've seen out of the ninth circuit recently, who've had descents that were pretty aggressive. This particular judge just said that there's no historical tradition of fire and regulation that matches the ban that Illinois currently has, and so that judge doesn't believe that the ban should stand. That's the correct way of looking at things.

But the other two judges definitely didn't see it that way, and this is how they came to their decision. The two judges in the majority basically said that the AR-15 too closely resembles the M16. Now, the M16, they're saying, is not protected by the Second Amendment in the Constitution, and therefore, because this one is similar, it's not protected either.

Now, you're probably out there thinking to yourself, "How is that possible? They are not the same thing whatsoever." And if I were to hand this to somebody in the military and say, "Good luck," they're going to be like, "What the hell is this? I don't want it because they're going to want what has the full fire controls and stuff like that." So, they're not the same, but these judges say because the AR is so easily converted, it should be considered the same, writing this: "The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easily it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a 'bump stock' or an 'auto sear' to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon."

Now, they added on to that by saying that they both "deliver the same kinetic energy." Now, I'm thinking to myself, if they ever used a 300 wind mag, we'll talk about kinetic energy at another time. This is not the most viable option when it comes to purely kinetic energy and/or ballistics.

In my mind, there are two factors here at play. The first one is these judges do not understand the subject matter at hand. They don't know what they're talking about. They don't understand what they're talking about. They don't have the same life experience. They don't have the same hands-on experience. They don't have the range experience like you and I do so that we have a knowledgeable understanding of the topic. The other thing is, number two, they also have a personal agenda. They would like to see these things gone. And so, anytime that they can conflate things or connect the dots in any which way that would maybe get them around brewing Supreme Court precedent or would maybe just fit their agenda so that they can get done what they want done regardless of what the rule of law is or what the Constitution says, they'll do that. And so, we almost have like a woeful ignorance here. That's kind of what's going on.

So, again, you can see that the subject matter here is not understood by these judges. They're trying to connect the dots that just don't connect, and they say things that just don't make any sense to those of us who do understand it. And so, we get decisions like this.

Now, obviously, this is going to end up going up to the Supreme Court, right? We already have other cases that'll probably end up at the Supreme Court as well. So, more than likely, the Supreme Court's going to hear it, and just based on the numbers, I mean, just based on the common use test and the fact that it implicates the Second Amendment, I believe we would get a win out of the Supreme Court. And so, the seventh circuit, the ninth circuit, they're both going to be smacked down relatively soon. But just blatantly saying that they're not protected by the Constitution at all based on those reasons is, like I said in the beginning, outrageous. And I wanted to let you guys know about that. So, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The Supreme Court has decided to grant Cert in Garland v. Cargill which challenges the ATFs ban on "bump stocks". This case is about weather this executive agency has the authority to ban accessories where congress has not.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it looks like the Supreme Court has decided to take up another massive Second Amendment case with huge implications. This case could really end up being almost as big as Bruan, and Bruan changed the Second Amendment landscape within the United States core systems forever. So this is very big.

We're talking about Garland V Cargill, which is challenging the ATF's ban on bump stocks. But that's not what it's about. If you think it's just about that one specific device, try and remember that Bruan was only about Carrie. It had nothing to do with, you know, changing the Second Amendment landscape in our courts forever. This right here has to do with ATF and the ATF's authority to regulate accessories. This is going to be big. Let's talk about it.

Now, before we get started, I noticed there's a huge percentage of people out there who watch these videos but are not subscribed. If you wouldn't mind, take a quick second, hit that subscribe button. It's free, it doesn't cost you anything. Hit that little bell notification and stay on top of your Second Amendment rights. And also, check out the main sponsor of this channel, which is the USCA. With your USCA membership, you get things like self-defense liability insurance, reciprocity maps, online education and training, and a lot more. It's the best membership you could ever have in your wallet. So if you carry to defend yourself, I suggest you have a USCCA membership.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided to grant CT in Garland V Cargill, which basically just means that they've decided to take this case on as part of their workload. Garland V Cargill, like we said before, is a case that challenges the ATF's ban on bump stocks, but it's not about that device. And I've been telling people that for years now. What it's really about is the ATF's authority to ban something that is not regulated by Congress.

There's no law that Congress has passed that bans these specific accessories. What they're doing is they are redefining and changing what these accessories are once they are installed. And so this challenges the ATF's authority to do that. And so it's a huge case. The ATF lately has banned things like triggers and banned accessories like the brace, right? They've been going after accessories to try and circumvent Congress, who again hasn't passed any law against these specific accessories. They're just kind of taking this up on their own. So really, that's what this case is about.

So what does this mean for us? If we get a win here, and I think we will get a win here, I think that the precedent set forth by the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court being mostly conservative at this point, you're going to see a win here. And if the opinion is broad enough, it could essentially put a stop to all of these bans that the ATF has already created. There's lawsuits going on about the brace, about the triggers, and other things. And it would make those cases moot, right? Because the ATF would not be allowed to regulate such devices or change their definition. It wouldn't allow the ATF to exceed their scope, which is simply law enforcement and not law creation. The law creation is left up to Congress, law enforcement is left up to the ATF. But the ATF has been using their rulemaking powers in order to create new laws and enforce new laws that they create. Again, they've grown way outside of their scope here.

So what I'm really trying to say here is that this case is huge because it is the first step in reigning in this agency's overreach. Right now, any administration that's in office can simply say, "Hey, I don't like this particular thing. I would like to see it gone." The ATF can simply redefine it and then write a rule and watch it vanish. And they shouldn't have the ability to do that. They shouldn't have the ability to circumvent Congress.

So while you might think, again, that this is just about one particular device or one particular item, it's not. We could see something massive come out of this case that really, again, reigns in the ATF's overreach. So I, for one, am very excited to follow this one and see what happens. Hopefully, we do get that win, like I said, I think we will. But you just never know until it's over. So we will follow it, but it's still very big news that they decided to take this case on, and I wanted to share that with you. So thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, you guys have a great day.

Since the recent injunction in Boland v. Bonta we've seen several new things added to the California Roster. Most are things that were once previously on the roster. Thankfully now we have something that folks in California want and have been asking for in 2023.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So finally, some exciting news out of the state of California where something new has finally been added to the roster. As a matter of fact, it is sorely needed and probably the best thing that's been added to the roster yet. So let's go and talk about what it is.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here. So if you have an extra second (it's free), hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out. Let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here and why this is happening. You guys have probably seen it. There's been quite a few new things that have been added to the roster. A lot of them are things that were already on the roster previously but then expired and then weren't allowed to come back because of all the rules and regulations—micro stamping and stuff.

This is all happening because of the injunction in Bolan V bont, which has been a very, very big deal and it's been a very good thing for the roster as well. The injunction, which essentially said that you can't have micro stamping or loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect mechanisms, things like that, was appealed by the state of California. However, they did not appeal the micro stamping portion. That's why we're seeing all of these new things recently being added to the roster.

But this one right here takes the cake: the Sig P365 is now on the roster. So now we have the 320 and we have the 365, full size and subcompact. And the reason why this is so big and so great is because the 365 is probably one of the best carry pieces that you're going to find.

Now, it seems like California might be up to their standard shenanigans because I check the recently added page fairly often, and I have not seen that on there. It's not been on the recently added page. As a matter of fact, if you go check right now, it's still not on the recently added page. The only way that you can find it is by searching up that brand, and you will see all of the different things that have been added recently and you'll see little asterisks next to it, you know, things that are new and stuff like that. So it's not something that they wanted a ton of people to know about, and I think that's because of its overall popularity. They know that this is going to be a very big hit, they know that people are going to want it, and so they're just trying to sneak it under the rug.

Now, because the 365 was recently added, I want to let you guys know about some updates in some carry cases that we have in California, one of which is going to have a hearing as early as tomorrow. So if you guys know, we have a lawsuit that's been kind of back and forth between the ninth circuit and the district courts trying to overturn California's ban on open carry. There is a hearing set for tomorrow morning in that case. This is a case that was remanded by the ninth circuit back down to the district court because they didn't follow the proper procedures when denying originally denying an injunction. The ninth circuit also kind of told them that, "Hey, you got this one wrong." So taking a look at the merits, we could see California's ban on open carry overturned fairly soon. Again, the hearing is tomorrow, so we could have an answer in this one as early as a week or two.

Now, there's also multiple lawsuits challenging SB2, which is California's carry ban. The carry ban which makes it extremely expensive, very difficult to get your permit, and then once you get your permit, limits just about anywhere that you can carry is also being challenged. And we're looking for an injunction in that one as well, and that's making its way through the district court as of right now.

So as far as carry goes right now, it looks like our best chance to have something is going to be overturning this whole open carry ban that California has. So again, this is very, very important stuff, and I think that with that being added to the roster, it gives people at least one fantastic option that they can choose from. So I wanted to make you guys aware of that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, please subscribe, hit that little like button. That'd be fantastic and that little alarm bell which will notify you when new videos come out. Thanks again. Have a good one.

The head of the ATF, Steven Dettelbach this week openly called for a new ban on so called "assault weapons". However during his confirmation hearing he admitted he didn't even know how to define them. I wonder if we could now see a new "rule".

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, how do you ban something that doesn't exist? Well, I'm not sure, but that's what the ATF director, Steven Debach, would like to do. He's calling for a so-called assault weapons ban but doesn't even know what one is.

Mr. Debach, in your 2018 campaign for attorney general, you called for a ban on so-called assault weapons. What is an assault weapon? Could you define it for me?

Senator: I, uh, when I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons. I did not define the term, and I haven't gone through the process of defining that term.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Again, Steven Deach, the head of the ATF, the same agency that's recently created multiple rules infringing on our constitutional rights, has decided to call for a so-called assault weapons ban. During his confirmation hearing, he didn't even know what one was. He mentioned relying on experts at the agency and using whatever definition Congress came up with.

Let's take a look at the exchange between him and Senator Josh Hawley. Why is it so hard to define assault weapons?

Director Debach: Well, I think, Senator, what I told you, which is that you don't want it to be so narrow as to be meaningless and you don't want it to be so broad as to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans unnecessarily. Congress took an effort at that definition in 1994.

Senator: What did you think of that definition that Congress used?

Director Debach: I don't know enough about that part. That's a definition I'm not particularly familiar with, and I haven't studied the data on how on that particular definition. I've heard comments on both sides of that, Senator. I acknowledge that's a very difficult issue. Is it because there's really not a category of weapons known as assault weapons? I mean, there are rifles, shotguns, pistols. Can you go into a federally licensed firearm dealer and find the category of weapons labeled on the wall as assault weapons?

Director Debach: I don't believe that's a category of weapons that's labeled on the wall of retailers. It's not necessarily what retailers call it that would affect the decision of a legislative body.

So, Josh Hawley pretty much nailed it. There's no definition because they don't exist. It is a name that people in Washington gave them to make them seem scarier than they actually are. The fact that Debach doesn't even know what the 94 ban was about is telling.

He's now calling for an assault weapons ban, saying it's the job of Congress to define assault weapons. However, he contradicts himself by admitting there is no definition, and Congress hasn't created one yet. He's essentially calling for a ban on something that doesn't exist.

This is concerning because if they can make it seem like a legitimate category, they can create a definition and ban whatever they want. The ATF, instead of just enforcing existing laws, is creating new rules and definitions. It's something to keep an eye on as the more support they gain, the more meaning the term "assault weapons" may end up having.

Anyway, thank you all for watching. If you haven't subscribed yet, please consider doing so, and hit that like button. I really appreciate it. Have a great day!